Saturday, 22 September 2012

Does the mass media have a Leftist bias? No it *is* Leftist bias


People ask whether the mass media has a Leftist bias.

Unask the question: it implies a false frame.


The mass media is Leftist bias, it is the core of Leftism, has been since the mid-1960s at least and ever-more-so.


The standard model of media bias is a government which tells the media what to say and vets what it says in all minute particulars: something like Stalin and Pravda.

That obviously isn't what happens in the modern world - it would of course be impossible, such is the utterly vast volume of material being generated; and stupid people suppose this means that the media and government are independent the one of the other.


The mass media is not biased to Leftism, it is Leftism; so of course, Leftism  must come from within the media: the bias is generated by the mass media.    


What we have is (almost) the opposite of Stalin and Pravda.

Indeed, the power of government, and government officials, is now essentially the power of informers: they can 'shop' people to the mass media: their role is to enforce punishments on people chosen by the mass media.

But government cannot go against the mass media, because anyone who does will be picked-off for exemplary punishment.

If no specific person is responsible, then somebody will nonetheless be picked by the media for public punishment, to serve as an example (this is happening at present, all the time, all through the world, in large and in small).

Nobody is immune - everybody in public life who wants to stay in public life is afraid of the mass media.


(Well, everybody within the system of worldly modernity, anyway; but this now has an extensive reach, as events in the Middle East make clear. The state of deferential terror towards the mass media notably includes the heads of the major Western churches, who very obviously fear to depart from the media Leftist agenda, and live in continual trepidation about having a target painted on them by the mass media. This has eliminated traditional Christianity - that is, real Christianity - from the leadership of all the major denominations.) 


The mass media choose and label the targets for exemplary punishment, and various groups (police, officials, astroturf mobs, real mobs... it does not much matter which) will enforce punishments of one sort or another - from harassment via investigations up to vandalism, violence, prison and murder; and the media gives the whole process a positive interpretation.

That which happens outside this and/ or against the agenda of the mass media loop is ignored, mentioned then flushed down the memory hole, reframed, vilified, distorted, lied about, subjected to invented slurs...

Oh! the possibilities are endless!


Leftism is the mass media, and the mass media is Leftism, inseparable, the same thing: this of course  means that Leftism (in its modern form) depends utterly on the continuation of the mass media (depends on itself!), stands or falls with the mass media.

The mass media is the enemy of reaction, and cannot be subverted or exploited for reactionary purposes.

Anything which significantly damages the reach or grip of the mass media net damages Leftism - even if restrictions go against freedom, democracy, balance; even if directed against reaction; all things which tend to limit the mass media will ultimately lead to reaction...


(...Although, on present trends, not necessarily, nor even probably, tending to Christian reaction. Leftism is anti-Christian; but since Leftism is self-destroying it will necessarily lead to reaction: the priority for the Left is therefore that what follows its self-destruction will not be Christian. The only thing that could prevent this trend from becoming the outcome would be repentance and massive Christian awakening, renewal, growth...)



  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. @OdE - I think we must avoid the trap of imagining that ANY form of secular government can be good (except briefly), especially in the context of a thoroughly secular society.

    So, while it does seem especially indefensible for the PM to choose the Archbishop of C, it seems futile to debate the superiority of one form of injustice over another.

  4. "What exactly would happen to egalitarian democracy and freedom of religion if you had a respected, well-educated Anglican picking the head of the Church of England? I even have one in mind. Her name is Elizabeth."

    Olave falls into the trap of thinking that the Monarchy is in any important respect "conservative" (let alone reactionary or traditionalist). She is not. There is no evidence that she is somehow trapped or constrained by Leftism. She is a Leftist and would undoubtedly pick someone as awful as Rowan Williams if allowed to choose the AoC.

    What significant "conservative" thing has she said, let alone done, in the past 50 years, to restrict the onslaught of Leftism? Nothing comes to mind.

    Just look at her awful first son. Did she have nothing to do with his awfulness? What do you think will happen when he is "defender of the faith"? (Hint: not regression or restaint of Leftism.)

  5. "if the media controls the state, and the state controls the church ... and advertisers control the media! ... you will eventually have our morality dictated by TV commercials."

    Well, the Marxist's reading of history as class struggle tells us that the modern age began with the bourgeois merchant and banking classes replacing the aristocracy and clergy as the rulers of society. They would say that what you're describing is the mature state of capitalism.

    The Marxists are Montagnards, and have no love for their old enemies the Girondists. They're just as appalled by the regime of TV commercials as you are.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. @JP - I think you are wrong about the Queen - she is a sincere and devout Christian, hence would be likely to make a much better choice than any PM of recent memory - especially if she were a true monarch and the ArchB of C is second in precedence.

    (True: officially the ArchB of P is second only to the Queen - which just goes to show, OdE please note, how unimportant constitutions are!).

    For example, her most recent Christmas speech:


    @Corky - Marxists are "just as appalled by the regime of TV commercials as you are." - Yes, but for completely different reasons!

    But those old style (Old Left) 'puritanical' Marxists were just a transitional state on a slippery slope en route to what we have now; which is a self-destroying transitional state apparently en route to theocracy (religion yet to be decided).


    @OdE - I think your comment on a new constitution every six months is a clue to the futility of this kind of reasoning!

    The Byzantines, by contrast, knew their constitution came from God - which is the major reason why it lasted for more than 1000 years.

  8. My previous comment was intended to make two points:

    - The similarity between the Marxist interpretation of history as class struggle and the direction Olave's cogitations seemed to be taking.

    - That not everyone on the Left would agree with your thesis that the mass media is Leftist. Many, like the Marxists, see it as a tool used by the ruling bourgeoisie to create a false consciousness in the proletariat.

    I'm NOT saying I agree with that Leftist viewpoint. I'm just saying I think the ideas being broached here need a bit more work.

  9. Congratulations, Bruce: a fine rant with an uncomfortable amount of truth in it.

  10. Sorry if I seemed to be disagreeing Corky I'm just clarifying that Old Fashioned Marxists (if they really exist - and I haven't heard of any for quite a while) are not mainstream Leftism any more (rather as real Christians are not mainstream among people who term themselves Christian).

    Marxism is one version of the Old Left - and is concerned with class warfare, the proletariat/ working class, command economy and so on.

    The mainstream and dominant Left have been since mid 60s the New Left focused on pacifism/ siding with international enemies, sexual freedom, feminism, racism, and the rest of it.

    Most people who claim to be Marxists are New Left; maybe there are some Old Left among trades unions? But the proletariat are the enemy for the New Left - or at least they become the enemy whenever they come into conflict with the New Left priority agenda, which is nearly all the time...

    I have a few Old Left friends (older than me), and they are regarded as extreme conservatives by most people on the mainstream Left, and can only publish in right wing outlets!

  11. Maybe it's just that I live in the Soviet of Seattle, but I can assure you that, here at least, what you call the "Old Left" is still extant.

    There are also many post-left anarchists here in down in Oregon -- John Zerzan is very popular -- and they would probably accept the broad outlines of the view I sketched above.

  12. @Corky - Interesting. So would these Old Leftists *publicly* argue that socialism (economic equality) was more important and a higher priority than anti-racism, feminism and the sexual revolution? That a-r, f and the sr should be sacrificed to socialism when necessary?

    The Old Left in Britain had a strong 'ethical' (and patriarchal) streak, derived from non-conformist 'chapel' protestants - strict traditional morals, hard work, temperance, anti-fashion etc.

  13. "So would these Old Leftists *publicly* argue that socialism (economic equality) was more important and a higher priority than anti-racism, feminism and the sexual revolution? That a-r, f and the sr should be sacrificed to socialism when necessary?"

    Probably not. I don't think they would accept your implication that these are competing priorities and that it might be necessary to choose between them.

    In any case, I wasn't thinking along the lines of your distinction between the New Left and the Old "puritanical" Left. I was focusing on the fact that none of the Leftists I know would agree that their side is in power or that the mass media is expressing their viewpoint.

    They're the kind of people who tell the pollsters that the media is *too conservative*.

    Yeah, I know. The mind boggles.

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

  15. I would think that Marxists would welcome the most egregious TV commercials as bringing ever closer the collapse of our decadent order.
    But perhaps Marxism isn't what it used to be.
    Bring back Spengler, I say.

    What do you make of mass media that promote a free market agenda, and,
    has the Fox network become noticeably leftist while I slept?

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. Of course, mass media is what they call "ratings driven". It holds a mirror to Caliban, but it must be a distorting mirror.
    The masses are intolerant, homophobic spiteful, racist, and greedy, but want to be shown a different face in the magic mirror of television, one that they have accepted as desirable but cannot be stuffed attaining in reality. They want to be treated as different from what they are, more daring, kinder, less materialistic, more caring, a little more progressive in every way.
    A Rightist media would pander to these oafs by pretending to be Leftist. By showing them things on TV that they would not tolerate down the pub, but that flatter Caliban in his dreams of a life less monstrous.

  18. @OdE,

    "The question is whether the products are boring, not whether they are futile."

    Boring is a good thing or a bad thing? That could be one of BGC's litmus tests. The Left constantly craves "excitement" - and scorns order, truth, and virtue as "boring".


    The Queen may be a devout Christian, but I am not convinced that is an obstacle to being a Leftist. Even conceding your point, what she expressed in that Christmas speech was largely anodyne platitude. It will take more than that to Defend the Faith in this day and age. There is no sense in that speech (or any other of hers) that England or the English are worth preserving. To the contrary - the statement that "The Commonwealth is a family of 53 nations, all with a common bond, shared beliefs, mutual values and goals" is not merely manifestly absurd (England shares common beliefs, values, and goals with Pakistan and Uganda???) but gives no sense that England, as such, is worth preserving. If they all share common beliefs, values, and goals, then there can be no obstacle to anyone from the other 52 nations coming to England, with disastrous results.

  19. @JP - I accept these points; but you may not have realized that the Queen is a sincere and devout Christian.

    Prince Charles, however, is not and therefore ought to be automatically excluded from becoming King (and there are other reasons for exclusion) - however, I have only once seen this mentioned anywhere. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a straightforward constitutional application, but that seems to make no difference at all.

    I agree that the Commonwealth is nonsense, as was the British Empire by the time it ended. The only valid Empire for a Christian is a Christian Empire: unified in its faith as well as its monarch.